Leave No Trace Ethics

"I see a certain current of thought today that erroneously separates and alienates man from nature…"

I agree and disagree.

There's certainly an erroneous separation.

But there's also a profound separation on another level.
I teach at a school that's 4 miles from the beach.
I have students that have never been there, never seen it.
In my typical spontaneous class surveys, 40-50% of my students have never seen snow. 50% have never seen a live cow (yet eat them 3 meals a day).
I often like to playfully ask how many students have seen a carrot tree- most don't realize there's anything wrong with the question. At least 40% of my students don't really understand sex (biologically speaking) or childbirth. Most think the umbilical cord is attached to mom's stomach.
These are my students…they're seniors, 17-18 years old, many college-bound

Ask these questions to adults on the street.
I think you'll find a profound disconnection with the natural world there too…not talking just the "wild" here, I'm talking the whole natural world, all of its processes.

I think the current sad (and worsening) state of the global environment is a product of nothing but profound alienation and separation.

Coming back to nature, realizing we're one with it, that we're not separate?
Hard to do with so many twittering at 80mph on the 405 headed for a cubicle and a microwave lunch.

Semantics are hugely important. It's why we don't call black americans, or gays, or unmarried women by their previous designations, or any other minorities. It's why we strive towards gender and race-free terminologies. Choosing words and terms that promote a positive message over those that promote a negative message is not something that I (or Brian?) choose to brush under the table.

Semantics aside, I am a fire builder. But I hike in remote areas that are full of dead wood, and mostly pretty damp (temperate rain forests). You would have to be an arsonist to start a forest fire in these conditions. I also exclusively use a Ti-Tri Caldera, with a titanium base plate. The fire is contained, small, and safe. Would I do the same if I was hiking in Victoria in the middle of summer? No way. Saying absolutely NO fires, or NO toilet paper, or whatever, just doesn't make practical sense to me.

In NZ, someone has written an in depth article called "Menstrual waste in the backcountry". It's not just poos and wees that people want to regulate ;) Note some changes of wording to things like "carry home" verus "carry out". Semanitcs at work again…

http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/sfc035.pdf

Suggestions
I NFORMATION
Use the words "carry home" instead of "carry out" on all literature in order
to encourage backcountry recreationists to take all rubbish home rather
than dump it in the first convenient receptacle i.e., at a hut, or a roadside.
Pamphlets such as "Finding a Toilet in New Zealand" should make specific
reference to menstrual waste in order to heighten public awareness of the
need to dispose of this material appropriately. At present, the pamphlet
encourages people to "bury human waste" which includes menstrual waste
by default. Suggested wording: "Be careful to bury human excrement and
carry home paper and sanitary products".
A separate pamphlet could be produced which deals specifically with
menstrual waste and which contains information on the environmental
effects of leaving used menstrual products in the backcountry and gives
information on the availability of alternative disposal methods.
Information such as the package on alternative menstrual products produced
by the Nelson Environment Centre (Nelson Environment Centre, 1993)
could be distributed to information centres and other appropriate outlets;
backcountry recreation agencies, backcountry tourism agencies, tourist
accommodation agencies and outdoor education agencies so that the public
can become more informed about the issue of waste in backcountry areas.
All outdoor recreation clubs, outdoor education centres, schools, and
outdoor recreation tourism agencies should be informed on the appropriate
disposal of menstrual waste.

EDUCATION
All people involved in outdoor education, outdoor recreation, and
backcountry tourism, should be educated on the issues surrounding
menstruation in the backcountry and potential solutions to these issues.
All conservation estate managers, outdoor education, outdoor recreation and
backcountry tourism managers should be educated about the issues
surrounding menstruation in the backcountry and the disposal of menstrual
waste so that appropriate policies can be developed and implemented.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Make specific mention of menstrual waste in notices about waste disposal
displayed on toilet facilities and in huts to highlight the need to include this
waste in rubbish carried home. The words "including sanitary products"
should be added to statements which advise people to carry home all their
rubbish.
"Carry-home" bags provided by DoC or other agencies could include specific
mention of menstrual waste. The words "including sanitary products" could
be added where appropriate.
"Carry-home" bags could be available in dark colours and with air-tight
closures to facilitate carrying-home of used menstrual products
Signs placed in all backcountry toilet facilities should clearly indicate
whether or not menstrual waste can be disposed of via the toilet system, and
what alternative methods are to be used if not the toilet.
Hand wash facilities should be provided inside all toilet cubicles in order to
facilitate general hygiene and the washing of reusable menstrual products.
Development of a reusable container for the carrying home of used
menstrual products could be encouraged so that reliance on disposable
plastic bags is reduced in the long term.

OTHER
Research should be conducted on potential health problems arising from a
policy of carrying home waste from the backcountry. Encouraging people to
carry home waste (including used toilet paper, menstrual products and
infant diapers) may result in health problems arising from the dumping of
faecal matter and blood in either road-end rubbish receptacles or urban
refuse tips.
Any agency developing policy about the disposal of menstrual waste should
seek Maori advice regarding the impact of waste disposal practices on Maori
spiritual

>>Your description sounds as if you are talking about a site without evidence others have camped there

Bob, yes and no. There are trails where I live with clear rules about camping/building fires 100' from the trail and still you see fire rings less than 5' from the trail's tread at sites that are not obvious camping spots (i.e. not near water, not near a scenic overlook).

>>In that case, I would suggest avoiding the fire all together. While it is possible to have a fire and clean up after yourself so that others will not be able to see you had one, it is not as simple as just dismantling a fire ring. Most people will not (or cannot, or do not know how to) clean up the fire site properly. Best to just avoid it.

I agree that simply not building a fire is cleaner and more LNT, and that most people don't know how to properly clean up a fire site. However, 1) some people just like fires. A properly built fire is not going to burn down the woods and CAN be cleaned up to make it look like there never was a fire at that site. I've done it and I've been unable to find traces of my fire when I've returned to the same site a week later. So, I've got nothing against somebody who wants to build a fire when he/she goes camping. 2) Whether a group of campers properly cleans up their charred logs is minor, though (in my eyes anyway). Logs decompose on a timescale measurable in years, and an ash pile tends to wash away after enough rain has fallen on it. Stone fire rings will be there for millennia.

>>some people take that to mean scattering existing fire rings at sites that are already heavily used. Doing so is a bad idea, because it just strews blackened rock around and encourages proliferation of fire sites — better to have the repeated fires and black rocks at a single place.

Heavily used is sometimes a tricky characteristic to apply to a campsite. Given the right [read: wrong] set of campers, a single night's stay can make any patch of woods look like a heavily used campsite. If the campsite is at a likely spot, in a popular hiking/camping area, then yes you're right in that it would be pointless and often undesirable to dismantle the fire ring. However, I do believe that periodically cleaning up even heavily used backcountry campsites is a good idea. It lets a patch of woods recover. Dismantle the fire ring, drag sticks and brush over the trampled ground, let the woods take back the site, and let future campers find another spot. Also, if the fire ring clearly is not at a likely spot, (or, if likely, not desirable) I think it's best to clean up the campsite in that case too. Prevent things from getting out of control in the future and make the woods look more wild and less like an RV park.

Hi RogT

> considering the number of meals cooked on wood fires and butane and white gas stoves
> in australia …. would you say that a small wood fire was more or less easy to control
> than the occasional malfunctioning butane or white gas stove?

A small wood fire is MUCH harder to control under Australian conditions, especially when there is any wind – which often happens. And I am aware of a small number of cases where tourist campfires have been left to smoulder and have caused a wild-fire. But not many – we (Australians) do tend to be a bit paranoid in the summer.

But you raised another point: malfunctioning stoves. I know (how could I avoid it!) that lighting a white gas stove seems to involve a bit of a fire ball. All the same, I am not aware of any cases in Australia where a liquid fuel stove used by a walker has been implicated in starting a wild-fire. I may have missed one or two of course.

I am definitely NOT aware of any incidents where a canister stove has caused any problems when handled by a walker. In fact, the National Parks Services here have gone so far as to install FREE gas BBQs at some sites to prevent tourists from lighting wood fires.

I guess you have to live here to really appreciate the volatile nature of our bush.

Cheers

> I guess it's OK to bury macaroni and cheese boxes

That would be regarded completely unethical in Australia. Food packaging is designed to resist degradation for a long time. Pack it in; pack it out.

TP is designed to rot down quickly, and does so.

Cheers

Craig,

"I think the current sad (and worsening) state of the global environment is a product of nothing but profound alienation and separation.

Coming back to nature, realizing we're one with it, that we're not separate?"

Well said!!!! If you believe in evolution then logically humans ARE a part of nature. It is sad that as a culture we fear nature rather than live in harmony.

Brian,

Words do matter and the NO part of LNT was an unfortunate word choice, but an entire industry has been built around that trademark/logo/slogan. It might be easier to remove one of the Olympic rings.

I disagree with the LNT guideline that directs us to step downhill off the trail to give horses the right of way. Ray Jardine says to sep off uphill. The mule wranglers in the Grand Canyon have to step off uphill. It was a political compromise to get horse associations to adopt the guidelines. Hikers got sold out.

"If you believe in evolution then logically humans ARE a part of nature. It is sad that as a culture we fear nature rather than live in harmony."

You can't disentangle humans from nature in any philosophical argument, but imagine the disaster if all 6 billion of us decided to go bush and find our roots! 6 billion of any large mammal would overwhelm most fragile wilderness ecologies. 6 billion bears pooing in the woods, even without TP…!!

Leave no trace sounds like a great idea, but philisophically and empirically impossible- we leave a trace, even if we don't see it- It's not really an achievable objective, although an admirable one. Reminds me of solipsism.

I would agree that in popular sites, or high traffic areas, preservation of a wilderness experience has to be managed for sustainability.

I try leave minimal trace, no fires when I'm hiking (easy for me as I've spent most of my life hiking in total fire ban zones here in the lower Pyrenees and Australia) and packing out everything I bring that won't decompose, except my numbers one and two, which happily decomposes under a rock/ on a tree, along with the tons of other numbers from every other creatures in the vicinity. It's part of a wider conversation between species that nobody understands.

If I'm not hiking, but camping in a previously used site for a week or so, say fishing a remote river in the Snowy Mountains, or a trip deep into the bush, and there's a fire site, I'll use it for sure. I'll even make one myself for that length of time- done properly and safely. Horses for courses.

Ethics, in general, is a nebulous subject, and eventually distils to opinion, which is variable.

This probably doesn't help, but what the hell!

cheers,
fred

.

"did you have an LNT nun who hit you with an LNT ruler when you were a child? :)"

If a nun hits you with a ruler, it WILL leave a trace. ;)

.

Two interesting and thought provoking books to read on this topic were written by Guy & Laura Waterman…"Backwood Ethics" and "Wilderness Ethics." I'm sure that they would raise even more debate, but they do lay down some framework to this discussion if you are interested. Might be at your local library.

Another excellent and informative resource is the NOLS book, Soft Paths, by Bruce Hampton and David Cole. In it you'll find a pretty cogent discussion of TP and feminine hygene products, fire rings, etc. in all conceivable environments.

Ok, I will now attack champions of both sides of this argument:

I have no problem with the "No" in Leave No Trace. I agree that it is used in a loose, philosophical way and, frankly, is a lot catchier than "Do your best to maybe leave minimal trace."

That said, I often bury my TP. And then, of course, I do feel a twinge of guilt about it, because it isn't NO trace. This forces me to think about what I am doing, and I am mature and rational enough to understand that the "no" CANNOT be absolute. But being reminded to think about burying my TP, and being able to say to myself "there's a healthy, vigorous biome here and the TP will quickly reduce, etc." is a Good Thing. If I can't convince myself, I pack it out.

On the other hand, Craig, you did commit a blatant straw man attack. You made the argument:

burying toilet paper = burying all sorts of other trash

which is false. And not what the other debater was proposing. He was proposing burying toilet paper, not metallized waxed milk cartons. Straw man. Make a better argument.

When you said something like "I nonetheless consider burying TP to be littering." well, a lot of people here agree with you. Obviously. And then we could have proceeded to debate that point, as eventually happened after a 2 page delay. (And, for the record, the Slippery Slope is a fallacious argument, too.)

On the third hand- I also am elitist enough to like a set of guidelines like LNT to rein in Joe Sixpack. I will readily violate them myself, though, when it is reasonable, because I am Better Than Everyone Else, just like all of you. :-)

I will hereby refer to this topic in conversation with others as "Minimal Impact".

It makes more sense and is achievable. The phrase "Leave No Trace" taken literally means that my feet may not even touch the trail, since that will leave a clear trace of my passage.

Not even ultralight backpacking enables me to fly above the surface of the trail.

But I can do my best to have Minimal Impact not only on the trail, but (environmentally) in every other aspect of my life.

It seems there's quite a passion for the literal word around here.

I'll continue going TP free.
I'll continue trying my best to leave NO trace.

And if I ever dislodge a pebble or blow a snot rocket onto a boulder and walk away…well, I guess I've left a trace. You're all more than welcome to refer me to the proper authorities. If I'm to be condemned for what I'm trying to do then all is lost anyway.

:)

I practice "minimal trace" backpacking, pack out all of my own trash, and any other I find on the trail… but I do bury TP, and my hiking poles have carbide tips.

This is primarly in 2nd growth hiking areas within a hundred miles or so of NYC. But I'll probably pack out TP when I visit more sensitive and areas in the future.

overall I think the LNT guidelines were a response to the woodcraft style of outdoorsmanship that was popular up until the backpacking boom of the 60s/70s… and when contrasted with the hatchet carrying leanto building droves of the 50s, I think buried TP is fairly minimal.

I was taught when I began backpacking (a couple of years ago) to carefully burn TP and extinguish before burying… does anyone have thoughts on this for less fire prone areas? Is this a practice I should unlearn quickly? or would it still be considered a reasonable method?

"I was taught when I began backpacking (a couple of years ago) to carefully burn TP and extinguish before burying… does anyone have thoughts on this for less fire prone areas? Is this a practice I should unlearn quickly? or would it still be considered a reasonable method?"

It's all I've ever done. It's as close to LNT as I'll ever get and I think anyone would be hard pressed to find where I buried my poo. I suspect I'm not alone in this regard. I think it is certainly better than just burying the TP unincinerated. Only time it is less than optimal is when it's very windy, but I just take a bottle of water with me and find a very sheltered spot. No problems in 35 years.
You should read previous threads on this subject. It has been very thoroughly discussed.

If you burn your TP here in one of the SoCal forests, you'll run a high risk of starting a very large fire. Even if you've done it for years elsewhere.

I've seen some rather large groups of backpackers on trails (10-15 people

I had a quiet chuckle when I read that. Here in Japan it is very common to see groups of a hundred or more! And you should see the erosion of the trails! Some have been worn down so much that the trails have become gullies and ravines and you walk all day looking at embankments of mud and soil.. Many mountains in Japan have been so heavily overused that trail crews have had to build kilometer after kilometer of stairs and boardwalks just to keep people from trampling the habitat.

And since it is a tradition to greet every person you pass as you walk, just imagine what it is like when you have to stop every few seconds to say "Konnichiwa!" (Good Day!) to hundreds and hundreds of people in one day! I once left my camp at dawn and had the morning to myself, but at around nine, when the first waves of hiking mobs arrived from the trailheads below, I ended up greeting over 500 people as I headed down off the mountain. Needless to say I was irritated! By the time the sixth one-hundred strong group started passing me by I stopped the leader and gave him my mind, telling him that it was exhausting and disruptive and inconsiderate to force me to pass and wait for all those people all the time. He was very understanding, and obviously had never considered how it would impact people moving in the opposite direction.

So, a lot of the semantics that all you lot are getting all steamed up about is really kind of small potatoes for people from places like I live. Here it is not a question of becoming invisible; it is more a question of not crapping on the neighbor whose tent is just 50 centimeters away. There is no doubt at all here that humans are the problem. I guess people in America and Australia still have the luxury of seeing the world in the eyes of the cowboys and swagmen, but those places where the land is smaller and populations are bigger somehow, someway we have to find rules that will both minimize our impact and still allow us to love and enjoy the natural world.

"If you burn your TP here in one of the SoCal forests, you'll run a high risk of starting a very large fire. Even if you've done it for years elsewhere."

Agreed. Obviously, judgment is mandatory. One more reason why I would never hike in SoCal forests. I promise to forever do my hiking elsewhere. (BIG SMILEY)

"Agreed. Obviously, judgment is mandatory. One more reason why I would never hike in SoCal forests. I promise to forever do my hiking elsewhere. (BIG SMILEY)"

Sigh…and to think I used to live and hike in Oregon!

Alright, I've got to ask. Doesn't it smell really bad when you burn TP? I've never even thought to do it.

Miguel, Greeting the people you pass by on a trail is common etiquette here in the States too. Groups of a hundred hikers at a time is insanity, though.

Miguel, Greeting the people you pass by on a trail is common etiquette here in the States too. Groups of a hundred hikers at a time is insanity, though.

Hi Art, yes, I know that greetings are part of the whole hiking mindset in the States (and Europe and most everywhere else), too, and I really love how people start to open up and consider each other when in the wilds, but here it is not just etiquette… it's etiquette with a social stigma if you don't do it. More like a rictus smiled requirement. By the time half the day is over you feel like you've been chanting the same meaningless verse over and over again. Of course there are exceptions and I've met some truly wonderful people on the trails here, but hundreds of people is just nuts.

Here are interim results of a TP decomposition study from Tasmania:

http://www.crctourism.com.au/WMS/Upload/Resources/bookshop/humanwaste.pdf

The full results have been published, but I can't get to them for free.

Evidently, peeing on your TP makes it decompose faster, probably because the nutrients in the urine promote bacterial/fungal/plant growth. And, contrary to what I've heard before, TP breaks down faster in "drier" soil. That's probably a relative term, though, as I don't think Tasmania has deserts, right? I think they just mean that burying TP in a wetland is a Bad Idea.

Unfortunately, it doesn't give any indication of how long it takes the TP to totally decompose.

Here's the study from Nova Scotia, describing decomposition times and coliform counts for human poo:

http://www.wrweo.ca/backup/HumanWasteStudy.doc

Very spellbinding reading. This is the one that shows that poo decomposes SLOWER when buried.

Can anyone explain why the filter thinks "fece$" and "p00p" are naughty words?